About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> david patraeus testified before a closed hearing on the investigation concerning the consulate attack. following the hearing committee members spoke to reporters. >> so far seven hours of hearings, we have spent the last two hours with former director patraeus. he laid out his view, which was very much appreciated. he answered a large number of questions. we still have two additional hearings. hopefully the preparations of the findings and a public hearing. >> big two this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours? >> i will not comment now. we will most likely comment on those things in our final report. i think we have a ways to go yet. i think they are trying to be very careful and cautious. >> [indiscernible] >> since you asked that question -- the roles of our committee are you cannot use something that you learned in a classified session. i can give you my assessment based on questions, my investigation, that what susan rice did was use talking points, pulled out originally by the cia signed off by the intelligence community, those were requested by the house committee. the intelli
at the life of harry truman. >> david patraeus testified on a hearing on the consulate attacked in benghazi. he stepped down last week because of an extramarital affair, but he has agreed to appear before a house and senate investigative committee. following the committee we hear a reaction from peter king and others. this is about 30 minutes. these talking points that were put up? >> basically we are still not clear how the final talking. the marriage. they said it went through a long process involving many agencies. the department of justice, the state department, nobody knows yet who came up with the final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points or different than the ones that were finally put out. as far as general patraeus, his testimony was from the start he told us this was a terrorist attack and the terrorists involved from the start. the clear impression we were given was the overwhelming amount of evidence was it the rose out of a demonstration and was not a terrorist attacks. i pointed out the following week when she said it was a terrorist att
statement. who is the heat? >> patraeus appears to -- the seventh from petraeus appears to be amended. what he did stay based on th news reporting is that the statement that was sent out, the riding said katie suspected. the change was indications of tremists. this goes to a larger narrative that there was not a terrorist attack, and if you listen for thpresident's words of the united nations he talks about a mindless attack. mindless activities. well, no. it was not mindless. it was preplanned. here's the president trying to make the point that it was not of planned terrorist act. something about the way the president is approaching this and all his supporters have got behind in to try to sell is narrative to the united states. it just wasn't true. lou: top house armed services democrat and embrace -- adam smith, rather, as we just saw talking about the statements by ambassador rice saying he does not understand how a terrorist attack can be both spontaneous and preplanned. it's just bizarre what is going on here. the 80 logical, if you will, mandated logic of all is appalling . >> dem
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)